Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability With State and Local Flexibility

Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability With State and Local Flexibility (Letter Report, 10/10/97, GAO/HEHS-98-3).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the accountability measures the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act requires at the federal, state, and local levels; (2) the activities that the Department of Education uses for overseeing state and local programs; (3) how state education agencies (SEA) ensure local programs' compliance with the act; and (4) how Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding is specifically used at the state and local levels.

GAO noted that: (1) the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one of several substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs funded by the federal government; (2) the act that authorizes the program requires four major types of actions to ensure accountability on the federal, state, and local levels: (a) an application process requiring approval of state and local program plans; (b) monitoring activities by state agencies; (c) periodic reports and evaluations; and (d) the use of local or substate regional advisory councils; (3) Education oversees state programs directly and local programs indirectly through required state actions; (4) working along with states, Education reviews, helps states to revise, and approves state plans; (5) Education has issued no program-specific regulations on the act; (6) Education does require states to conform to general and administrative regulations and advises states on program matters, such as allowable expenditures, through nonbinding guidance; (7) the Department may get involved in resolving allegations of impropriety in the use of funds; (8) no overall evaluations of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program have been completed; (9) Education conducts evaluation activities designed to provide both descriptive and evaluative information about the programs; (10) Education's evaluative activities focus on broader aspects of program implementation; (11) Education is indirectly gathering information about the effectiveness of specific state and local programs through reports states must submit to Education every 3 years; (12) the lack of uniformity in what states report may create a problem for federal oversight; (13) nearly all states use the approved local plans to ensure local programs' compliance with the act's requirements; (14) states use local compliance with the approved plans as a way of ensuring that funds are spent on activities permitted under the act; (15) most states use both on-site visits and local self-reports to oversee local program activities; (16) local education agencies (LEAs) are also required to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs; (17) SEAs and LEAs use Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds for a variety of activities; (18) states mostly use their 5-percent set-aside for activities such as training and technical assistance; (19) ninety-one percent of LEAs provide drug-prevention instruction; and (20) staff training is the next most offered activity.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

REPORTNUM: HEHS-98-3 TITLE: Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability With State and Local Flexibility DATE: 10/10/97 SUBJECT: Education program evaluation Educational grants Intergovernmental relations Alcohol or drug abuse problems Project monitoring School districts Crime prevention IDENTIFIER: Dept. of Education Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program

****************************************************************** ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a ** ** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter ** ** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major ** ** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, ** ** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and ** ** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines ** ** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the ** ** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the ** ** page numbers of the printed product. ** ** ** ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although ** ** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but ** ** may not resemble those in the printed version. ** ** ** ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when ** ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed ** ** document's contents. ** ** ** ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO ** ** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please ** ** send an e-mail message to: ** ** ** ** <info@www.gao.gov> ** ** ** ** with the message 'info' in the body. ** ******************************************************************

Cover ================================================================ COVER

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 1997

SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS - BALANCING ACCOUNTABILITY WITH STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY

GAO/HEHS-98-3

Safe and Drug-Free Schools

(104887)

Abbreviations =============================================================== ABBREV

ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1995 IG - Inspector General LEA - local education agency RESAVIII - Regional Education Service Agency VIII SEA - state education agency

Letter =============================================================== LETTER

B-277093

October 10, 1997

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

When the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was enacted in 1994, about 3 million thefts and violent crimes occurred on or near school campuses each year--nearly 16,000 incidents per school day. About one in five high school students regularly carried a firearm, knife, razor, club, or other weapon. After declining in the eighties, drug use rates among school-age youth increased between 1992 and 1995 for more than 10 different types of drugs. For example, one study reported that the rate of marijuana use by eighth grade students more than doubled--from about 7 to about 16 percent--and the rate for twelfth graders rose from about 22 to about 35 percent.\1

Since 1986, the federal government has awarded over $4 billion to states for implementing school-based drug- and violence-prevention programs authorized by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and its successor, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994. One of the purposes of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is to help the nation's schools provide a disciplined environment conducive to learning by eliminating violence in and around schools and preventing illegal drug use.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act authorizes funding at federal, state, and local levels for programs supporting this purpose. Under the largest program funded under the act, the Department of Education awards grants to state education agencies (SEA) mainly for further distribution to local education agencies (LEA). In school year 1995-96, $350 million of the $466 million appropriated for expenditure under the act was awarded to SEAs.\2 (See fig. 1.)

Figure 1: How Funding Reaches States and Local Schools, Fiscal Year 1995

(See figure in printed edition.)

Among the changes the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act made to the previous law were changes to increase accountability, that is, to better ensure that the activities supported by these funds are consistent with the act's general purposes. The act and its legislative history also indicate the importance of acknowledging local differences in defining measurable goals and objectives--differences reflecting local needs--and ways progress toward them will be assessed and reported. Under the act, SEAs and LEAs are accountable for progress toward the goals and objectives they set as well as for the federal dollars they spend. Increased accountability was a key issue raised in congressional deliberations about the act: critics of programs operated under the previous law claimed that some of the activities were inappropriate and would not contribute to accomplishing the goal of reducing student drug use.

To address these concerns, you asked us to review the following: (1) accountability measures the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act requires at the federal, state, and local levels; (2) activities Education uses for overseeing state and local programs; (3) how SEAs ensure local programs' compliance with the act; and (4) how Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding is specifically used at the state and local levels. To determine required accountability measures, we reviewed the act and its legislative history. To assess Education's oversight measures, we reviewed documents at Department headquarters and followed up on allegations of impropriety in three states (Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia), reviewing documentation and interviewing state and local officials involved in the alleged impropriety and its investigation and resolution (see app. I). To assess compliance and other activities at the state and local levels, we surveyed the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico about their activities and reviewed supporting documentation, such as report forms and evaluation reports. (See app. II.)

-------------------- \1 Monitoring the Future, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (Rockville, Md.: 1996).

\2 The remainder of the money under the state grants program is distributed through the governors' program, which is used for grants to or contracts with a variety of groups, organizations, and agencies. In general, each state's allocation is determined by the size of its school-age population and the amount of part A, title I funding the state received in the previous year for providing supplementary educational services to low-achieving children in high-poverty areas. In school year 1995-96, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools state grant provided $7.90 per student for illegal drug- and violence-prevention programs.

RESULTS IN BRIEF ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one of several substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs funded by the federal government. The act that authorizes the program requires a variety of federal, state, and local actions to ensure accountability. These actions involve four major types of accountability mechanisms: (1) an application process, requiring approval of state and local program plans; (2) monitoring activities by state agencies; (3) periodic reports and evaluations; and (4) the use of local or substate regional advisory councils. In combination, these mechanisms address accountability for both how funds are spent and progress toward achieving national, state, and locally defined goals.

Education oversees state programs directly and local programs indirectly through required state actions. Its state oversight is a combination of activities required by the act and other generally applicable requirements. Working along with states, Education reviews, helps states to revise, and, finally, approves state plans--which include a description of planned state-level activities, criteria for selecting high-need districts that will receive supplemental funds, and plans for monitoring local activities-- before disbursing funds. In addition, Education conducts on-site monitoring visits. To allow states and localities enough flexibility to meet their needs, Education has issued no program-specific regulations on the act. Education does, however, require states to conform to general and administrative regulations and advises states on program matters, such as allowable expenditures, through nonbinding guidance. In addition, the Department may get involved in resolving allegations of impropriety in the use of funds. For example, Education, in response to allegations about Drug-Free Schools programs, reviewed programs in West Virginia and participated in resolving adverse audit findings in Michigan.

To date, no overall evaluations of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program have been completed. In addition to its activities intended to ensure that funds are spent appropriately, however, Education conducts evaluation activities designed to provide both descriptive and evaluative information about the programs. The descriptive information should document the nature and extent of school violence, as well as the characteristics of federally funded violence-prevention programs and their activities, including those of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Education's evaluative activities focus on broader aspects of program implementation, such as promising practices and program improvement processes, but will not specifically assess the effectiveness of all Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs nationwide. Instead, Education is indirectly gathering information about the effectiveness of specific state and local programs through reports states must submit to Education every 3 years. The lack of uniformity in what states report, however, may create a problem for federal oversight. A survey of LEAs may provide additional information on local program effectiveness, but that study is still in the planning stages.

Nearly all states use the approved local plans as the primary means for helping to ensure local programs' compliance with the act's requirements. States use local compliance with the approved plans as a way of ensuring that funds are spent on activities permitted under the act. Under the act, each state may establish its own reporting requirements for LEAs. Although these requirements have some common elements--40 states require a program report, and 42 states require a financial report--state requirements generally vary widely. Most states use both on-site visits and local self-reports to oversee local program activities. States also resolve allegations of impropriety, as in the Virginia case we reviewed. LEAs are also required to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs, but most states reported in our survey that they had little specific knowledge of the content or results of these evaluations.

SEAs and LEAs use Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds for a variety of activities, as permitted by the act. States mostly use their 5-percent set aside for activities, such as training and technical assistance, although they also use the funds for such activities related to curriculum development, violence prevention, state-level evaluations, and demonstration projects. Services provided by 60 percent or more of LEAs nationwide include drug- prevention instruction for students; staff training; general violence- prevention instruction; special one-time events, such as guest speakers, drug- and alcohol-free social activities, such as a dance or picnic; parent education/involvement; student support services, such as counseling and referral services; and curriculum development and acquisition. Ninety-one percent of LEAs provide drug-prevention instruction. Staff training is the next most offered activity, with 77 percent of districts reporting such training.

BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In October 1994, the Improving America's Schools Act, which reauthorized education programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), revised and expanded drug education under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, which is title IV of ESEA. The purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act is to create a comprehensive program to support National Education Goal Seven, which is "by the year 2000, every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning." School year 1995-96 was the first school year in which the program was in effect.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools grants have some of the broad characteristics of block grants that we have identified in previous work.\3 For example, the act authorizes federal aid for a wide range of activities within a broadly defined functional area; recipients have substantial discretion to identify problems, design programs, and allocate resources; federally imposed requirements are limited to those necessary to ensure that national goals are being accomplished; and federal aid is distributed on the basis of a statutory formula. For such grants, accountability plays a critical role in balancing the potentially conflicting objectives of increasing state and local flexibility, while attaining certain national objectives.

-------------------- \3 Block grants provide significant discretion to states and localities to define and implement federal programs according to local needs and conditions. For a complete list of the characteristics of block grants as well as the issues involved in ensuring accountability in block grant programs, see Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions (GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept. 1, 1995).

SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS PART OF EDUCATION'S STRATEGIC PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is discussed as part of Education's strategic plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993\4 (the Results Act). The Results Act requires executive agencies, including Education, to develop a 5-year strategic plan that includes long-term strategic goals,\5 establish annual performance goals, and report on progress toward those goals and objectives. Education's draft strategic plan for 1998-2002 includes an objective for safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools.\6 Education's statement of core strategies for achieving this objective make it clear that Safe and Drug- Free Schools will play a major role. In addition, the program is specifically cited in one of the six performance indicators that Education has chosen for assessing accomplishment of this objective. These indicators are to

-- slow recently increasing rates of alcohol and drug use among school-aged children by 2000;

-- achieve continuous decreases in criminal and violent incidents in schools by students between now and 2002;

-- realize continuous improvement in the percentage of students reporting negative attitudes toward drug and alcohol use between now and 2002;

-- improve prevention programs by having the majority of LEAs participating in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program use prevention programs based on Education's principles of effectiveness by 1999;\7

-- ensure, by 1999, that all states collect data statewide on alcohol and drug use among students and violence in schools; and

-- increase significantly by 2000 the number of teachers who are appropriately trained to address discipline problems.

-------------------- \4 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results. Specifically, the Results Act requires executive agencies to prepare multiyear strategic plans and annual performance plans and reports. For general information on implementation of the Results Act, see The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109). For specific information on Education's plan, see The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Education's June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-176R, July 18, 1997).

\5 The first 5-year strategic plan must be submitted to the Congress by Sept. 30, 1997.

\6 See U.S. Department of Education: Strategic Plan, 1998-2002, Draft for Consultation and Review (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 1997).

\7 These principles were published in a notice soliciting public comments in the July 16, 1997, edition of the Federal Register. The principles would require LEAs to develop Safe and Drug-Free programs on the basis of an objective analysis of the need for drug- and violence-prevention services and to use program approaches whose effectiveness has been demonstrated through research.

OTHER FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS ALSO SET ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS PROGRAM ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, like other Education programs, is subject to other federal laws and generally applicable regulations in the use of its funds and program operations. For example, the Education Department General Administrative Regulations apply to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program as well as other grant programs. These regulations establish uniform requirements for administering Education grants and principles to determine costs for activities assisted by the Department. In addition, the Single Audit Act requires each state to conduct annual independent audits of programs in the state that receive federal funds.

Some aspects of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program are also affected by the general provisions of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. In particular, the Improving America's Schools Act authorizes states to submit a single application for several federal education programs rather than separate program-specific applications. The new consolidated application process, which began with school year 1995-96 funds for Education programs, including the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, is intended to enhance program integration and reduce SEAs' administrative burden.

The Improving America's Schools Act also requires Education to establish procedures and criteria under which a SEA may submit a consolidated application or plan. Education's guidelines state that the consolidated plan should provide a framework for determining, within the context of a state's school reform plan and other reform initiatives, how the federal programs in the consolidated plan will be used to help all children reach the state's academic achievement goals.\8

Education's guidance for the consolidated applications requires states to include some, but not all, of the information required in comprehensive state plans by the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. States must include in their consolidated application their criteria for selecting LEAs for supplemental high-need funding, their plans for spending the 5-percent set aside for state-level program activities, and their process for approving local plans for funding.

-------------------- \8 If a state submits and has approved a consolidated application, rather than a comprehensive one, the state may require LEAs receiving funds from more than one program to submit consolidated LEA applications that cover all applicable programs.

MANY PROGRAMS SUPPORT NATIONAL SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS GOAL ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

While the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program's explicit goal is to reduce drug use and violence in schools, other programs are also likely to influence progress toward this national goal. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one of several substance abuse- and violence- prevention programs funded by the federal government. For example, in fiscal year 1995, 70 federal programs were authorized to provide either substance abuse-prevention or violence-prevention services or both to the youth they serve.\9 Thirty-four of these programs could provide both types of prevention services. Education, which administers the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, along with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, administered most of these programs, 48 in all, but the rest of the programs were disbursed among 10 other federal agencies or entities. For these 70 programs, the fiscal year 1995 appropriations for services to youth totaled at least $2.4 billion.

Multiple programs dispersed among several agencies creates the potential for inefficient services and ineffective use of funds. Although we have not fully examined these multiple programs, the implications of having multiple, unintegrated substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs might be like those for employment training programs--an area we have examined. In fiscal year 1995, we identified 163 federal employment training programs located in 15 departments and agencies. We recently concluded that consolidating these programs could probably reduce the cost of providing job training services because of the efficiencies achieved by eliminating duplicative administrative activities. Furthermore, consolidating similar programs could improve opportunities to increase service delivery and effectiveness.\10

-------------------- \9 See Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention: Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of Efficiency and Effectiveness (GAO/T-HEHS-97-166, June 24, 1997).

\10 See Department of Labor: Challenges in Ensuring Workforce Development and Worker Protection (GAO/T-HEHS-97-85, Mar. 6, 1997).

QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND ACTIVITIES ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.4

During the past several years, some members of the Congress, in response to constituents' concerns, have questioned how some states and localities have used funding under both the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act programs. Allegations about misuse of funds have spanned diverse areas of program operation, from curriculum content to administrative expenses. In particular, questions have been raised about the extent to which these funds can be used to support programs, such as comprehensive health education programs, of which drug prevention is just one part; the types of activities sponsored by schools, such as alcohol-free dances; and expenditures for materials, such as pencils and tee-shirts imprinted with drug- and violence-prevention messages (see app. I for the results of our examination of some allegations).

ACT REQUIRES FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ACTIONS TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act establishes accountability mechanisms at the federal, state, and local levels. In combination, these mechanisms provide accountability for both spending funds (financial accountability) and reaching national, state, and locally defined goals (program accountability). The act specifies no mechanisms for direct federal oversight of local activities. Rather, the act's mechanisms for federal oversight of the program focus on state-level programs and activities, while relying on state actions for local program oversight. The act establishes four types of accountability mechanisms: (1) an application process that requires approval of state and local plans; (2) state monitoring of LEAs' programs; (3) reports on national, state, and local program effectiveness; and (4) LEAs' use of advisory councils to develop program plans and assist program implementation.

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOCUS ON STATE PLANS, NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Education executes two of the four actions required by the act for ensuring accountability in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program: approving state plan applications and reporting on national, state, and local program effectiveness.\11

The act requires Education to review and ensure that state plans for Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs conform with federal requirements before providing funding to a state. The act also directs Education to use a peer review or similar process in reviewing state plans and provides detailed requirements for the contents of the state plan. For example, under the act, states must include in their plans (1) measurable goals and objectives for their drug- and violence- prevention programs, (2) a description of state-level program activities, (3) their plans for monitoring LEAs' programs, and (4) the state's criteria for identifying high-need districts that will receive supplemental funding for drug- and violence-prevention programs.

The act also requires Education to gather data about school violence and drug abuse and to assess the effectiveness of drug- and violence- prevention activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program and other recent federal initiatives. Education expects to report the results of these assessments, along with its recommendations, to the Congress by January 1998. The act also requires, indirectly, that Education collect data from states on the effectiveness and outcomes of state and local programs. That is, under the act, LEAs must provide the state with information about their programs' effectiveness, which states must then use in their required reports to Education.

-------------------- \11 The application approval action also includes approval of local plans for which states are responsible.

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STATES FOCUS ON OVERSIGHT OF LOCAL PROGRAMS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Under the act, states must use application approval, program monitoring, and reporting as accountability mechanisms for ensuring that Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs conform with federal requirements. States must review applications from LEAs to determine if they are eligible for funding. Through the application process, states must ensure that each LEA receiving funds has (1) measurable goals for its drug- and violence- prevention program, (2) objectively assessed students' current use of drugs and alcohol as well as violence and safety problems in its schools, and (3) developed plans for a comprehensive drug- and violence- prevention program. The comprehensive plan must describe how the LEA will use its funds; coordinate its efforts with communitywide efforts and other related federal, state, and local programs under this or other acts; and report progress toward the LEA's drug- and violence-prevention goals. In addition, states may also require the submission of other necessary information and assurances. The act requires each state to monitor local program implementation and report to Education on its progress toward its drug- and violence-prevention goals.

Although the act lists several general oversight responsibilities for states, it does not clearly specify actions states must take to meet these responsibilities. For example, although states must monitor local program implementation, the act leaves states to determine how to do this. In addition, it authorizes states to develop their own reporting requirements for LEAs and determine when LEAs must report on their programs.

The act requires LEAs to consult with local or substate regional advisory councils in developing applications for state funds. These councils also regularly review program evaluations and other relevant material and make recommendations to LEAs for improving drug- and violence- prevention programs. In addition, these councils distribute information about drug- and violence-prevention programs, projects, and activities conducted by LEAs and advise LEAs on coordinating such agency activities with other related programs, projects, and activities as well as on the agencies administering such programs, projects, and activities. Education's General Administrative Regulations require the state to oversee the LEA programs to ensure that such advisory councils are used as intended. Because the focus of our analysis was to describe and assess the accountability measures used at the federal and state levels, we did not assess how these advisory councils operate at the local level.

ACT ALSO SETS REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAM CONTENT AND ACTIVITIES ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

The act, in addition to establishing actions federal, state, and local agencies must take to ensure accountability, has some requirements for program content and the types of activities permitted under the law. These requirements are broadly stated, permitting significant discretion at the state and local levels. The act also includes some prohibitions on how funds may be used and restricts Education's activities regarding curriculum that may be used in state and local programs.

COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS MANDATED ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

Local drug- and violence-prevention programs under the act must be comprehensive. The act requires that comprehensive programs be designed for all students and employees. Programs for students must be designed to prevent use, possession, and distribution of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs; prevent violence and promote school safety; and create a disciplined environment conducive to learning. For employees, the program must be designed to prevent the illegal use, possession, and distribution of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs. The act also requires these comprehensive programs to include activities that promote the involvement of parents and coordination with community groups and agencies.

ACTIVITIES ALLOWED -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4.1

The act identifies a wide range of programs and activities that a LEA may include in its comprehensive program, though the act does not limit LEAs to the examples it provides. For example, programs noted as permissible include comprehensive drug prevention; comprehensive health education, early intervention, student mentoring, and rehabilitation referral programs that promote individual responsibility and offer techniques for resisting peer pressure to use illegal drugs; and before- and after-school recreational, instructional, cultural, and artistic programs in supervised community settings.\12

Activities allowed for these programs include the distribution of drug- prevention information; professional development of school personnel, parents, and law enforcement officials through activities such as workshops and conferences; implementation of strategies that integrate services to fight drug use such as family counseling, early intervention activities to prevent family dysfunction and enhance school performance; and activities designed to increase students' sense of community such as community-service projects. Funds may also be used for metal detectors, safe-passage zones--crime- and drug-free routes students may take to and from school--and security personnel; such uses, however, are limited to no more than 20 percent of a LEA's funds and are allowed only if a LEA has not received other federal funding for these activities. The law explicitly prohibits use of program funds for construction (except for minor remodeling), medical services, or drug treatment or rehabilitation.

-------------------- \12 The emphasis on a comprehensive program and the wide range of activities allowed by the act are consistent with the findings of our previous studies: see Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control Strategy (GAO/GGD-97-42, Mar. 14, 1997); School Safety: Promising Initiatives for Addressing School Violence (GAO/HEHS-95-106, Apr. 25, 1995); and Adolescent Drug Use Prevention: Common Features of Promising Community Programs (GAO/PEMD-92-2, Jan. 16, 1992).

MATERIALS AND CURRICULA ALLOWED ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

Materials used in Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs must convey a clear and consistent message that the illegal use of alcohol and other drugs is wrong and harmful. The Secretary of Education may not prescribe the use of any specific program curricula but may evaluate the effectiveness of the curricula and strategies used.

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.6

Most of the funds for state and local drug- and violence-prevention programs must be distributed to LEAs. From the funds awarded to SEAs for state and LEA grant activities, SEAs may reserve no more than 5 percent for statewide activities and no more than 4 percent for program administration. The remaining funds (at least 91 percent) must go to LEAs; in school year 1995-96, this amounted to $313 million. Thirty percent of this amount, $94 million in school year 1995-96, must go to LEAs that the state has determined have the greatest need for additional funds to carry out drug- and violence-prevention programs. The act requires states to provide these supplemental funds to no more than 10 percent of the state's LEAs, or five such LEAs, whichever is greater.

EDUCATION USES STATE APPLICATION PROCESS, MONITORING, AND REPORTS FOR PROGRAM OVERSIGHT ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Education uses several mechanisms to execute its responsibilities for ensuring program accountability. Some of these mechanisms are required by the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act; others are required or permitted under other generally applicable laws and regulations such as the Single Audit Act and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations. Some of these activities--such as the application review process--are intended to ensure that program activities and expenditures comply with federal requirements. Others seek to determine if programs are addressing national goals.

PLANS FORM BASIS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

State and local plans form the basis for Safe and Drug-Free Schools accountability. States cannot get Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds without submitting a plan consistent with the act and approved by Education. Education reviews states' plans for compliance with the act and other federal requirements and for program quality. In addition, state plans provide Education with detailed information on what states want to accomplish with their funding and their program management strategy.

EDUCATION PROPERLY REVIEWED APPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL YEARS 1995-96 AND 1996-97 ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Our review of Education's files on 16 state plans for school years 1995-96 and 1996-97\13 showed that Education, as required by the act, reviewed state plans and required states to revise plans that did not conform with the law's requirements before disbursing funding to the states. Education reviewed each application to ensure the completeness and sufficiency of the information provided. When reviewers identified missing or inadequate information, they asked the states to provide additional information, and Education notified states on time that they would receive their grant awards.

For school year 1996-97, states submitted their plans on time, and Education again reviewed the plans for conformity with federal requirements. Although Education sometimes requested additional information from states before awarding Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding, the Department also approved some state plans conditionally. In these cases, Education specified in states' grant award documents additional time--1 year--for them to revise their plans to conform with federal requirements.

Education established procedures for its review of state plans and provided its staff with checklists and other forms on which to document the results of these reviews. These procedures varied little for the 2 years encompassing our review. Education documented the results of its review in departmental records, including at least a copy of each state's plan, the reviewers' comments, material from each state responding to Education's request for supplemental information, and grant award documents.

In both years, Education's review included checks for compliance with the act. For example, Safe and Drug-Free Schools program staff initially reviewed plans, checking to make sure each state plan had all of the law's required assurances, signatures, and plan components. Education asked states whose plans did not pass this review to supply the missing information. Program staff also read state plans, documenting any planned activities that failed to conform with or fully satisfy federal requirements. Program staff then shared the results of this review with state officials, requested additional information, or suggested plan revisions.

Education also reviewed state plans for quality as part of its plan approval process for the 2 years we reviewed. For school year 1995-96 plans, Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools program staff conducted this review and raised questions with state officials about a variety of program quality issues such as the planned program's ability to address assessed needs. For school year 1996-97 plans, Education used a peer review process, with program staff from various Office of Elementary and Secondary Education programs as reviewers along with external experts. Education's process for the quality review was essentially the same for 1996-97 plans as it had been for 1995-96 plans.

-------------------- \13 We reviewed files for the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

EDUCATION CONDUCTS MONITORING ACTIVITIES ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Education also monitors states' activities. Monitoring activities include state and local visits, reviews of state audit findings, and investigations by Education's Inspector General (IG). Each monitoring visit involves an initial visit to a SEA; subsequent visits to local school districts may also be a part of the monitoring visit.

Until September 1994, Education's on-site monitoring visits were program specific; that is, they were made only to review Drug-Free Schools' state and local program activities. In school year 1993-94, Education conducted program-specific monitoring reviews in three states; in school year 1994-95, Education conducted two such reviews. The Department used a variety of criteria to select states for on-site reviews, including complaints.

In September 1994, however, Education changed the way it conducted on-site monitoring reviews. The Department's new process--called an integrated review process--uses an entire team of Education officials\14 representing all the federal education programs in which a state participates to review a state's use of federal aid to reach its educational goals. Education piloted this integrated review process in school year 1994-95, visiting five states. In school year 1996-97, Education visited 20 states to conduct integrated reviews, which included reviews of Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs.

In addition, the Department has in the past visited states to resolve allegations of impropriety related to the use of funds under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Education did so in West Virginia in 1992 and in resolving adverse audit findings in Michigan in 1994. In West Virginia, Education received a complaint letter from a parent and directed the state superintendent of education to investigate. Education officials twice visited West Virginia--first in 1992 and again in 1994--in response to complaints about the curriculum used in one LEA's Drug-Free Schools program. As part of their review, federal officials interviewed state and local education officials and reviewed relevant curriculum materials.

In Michigan, state auditors questioned some LEA expenditures under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. The findings were reviewed by Education's IG and the program staff. The Department sustained some findings but disallowed others. (See app. I.)

Education also uses its reviews of state audit findings and on-site IG reviews to stay informed of state activities. Each year, states' federally funded programs must be independently audited as part of the federally required single state audit process.\15 These audits--which may include the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program--identify specific findings, such as expenditures not allowable under the authorizing legislation. These findings are resolved by the Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, who sustains or rejects the findings after considering information provided by the auditor and auditee. The single state audits have uncovered improper and questionable expenditures in state and local programs. For example, state auditors in Michigan uncovered questionable state expenditures of federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funding. Their findings triggered a state legislative review of the program.

In the last 3 fiscal years, Education's IG has conducted two studies of activities under Drug-Free Schools.\16 A citizen's complaint prompted a 1995 audit of certain financial matters in the administration of the West Virginia program. In response to the complaint, Education's IG sought to determine if one of West Virginia's regional education service agencies was administering its Drug-Free Schools program in compliance with applicable federal acts and regulations.\17

More recently, in February 1996, the IG issued a report describing the programs offered in nine local Drug-Free Schools programs in eight states.\18

Although the IG work plan for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 includes no audits of any Safe and Drug-Free Schools activities, the 1997-98 draft work plan includes two audits of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act activities. The first audit would examine the use of Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds and the amount of such funding reaching the classroom. The second audit would review program performance indicators. In addition, Education issued an audit supplement in June 1996 providing further guidance that will be used, for example, when states audit Safe and Drug-Free Schools activities. The supplement, which pertains to several Education programs amended by the Improving America's Schools Act, will be used immediately by the states to conduct audits of school year 1995-96 program grantee activities. Suggested audit procedures include reviews of funded activities, expenditures, and other related records to determine whether Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds were used for any prohibited activities.

-------------------- \14 The team is called a regional service team and includes staff from program offices in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Education has divided the country into eight regions; each region has six to eight states. Each regional service team oversees the federally funded programs and provides technical assistance to the states in its region.

\15 The Single Audit Act requires states and local entities to undergo a comprehensive single audit of their financial operations. Some states and local entities, however, are excluded from the requirements because the funding is lower than thresholds established by the law. States submit their audit reports to the Single Audit Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse sends reports with findings directly to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, who then distributes the appropriate sections of the reports to the relevant program offices for resolution.

\16 According to Education officials, most IG staff are assigned to work on the larger Student Financial Assistance programs. IG staff in areas not related to the student financial assistance programs focus on programs scheduled for upcoming reauthorization.

\17 See app. I for a more detailed explanation of the allegations and subsequent investigations.

\18 Correspondence to the Honorable William H. Zeliff, Jr. dated Feb. 8, 1996, from Steven A. McNamara, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, U.S. Department of Education.

EDUCATION TO REPORT ON PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

As required by the act, Education is gathering information about the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Overall, Education's data collection and evaluation activities comprise a (1) national evaluation of drug- and violence-prevention activities, including those funded under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program;\19 (2) national data collection on violence in schools; (3) national survey to gather information about local program improvement activities; and (4) compilation of state-level reports on program effectiveness and progress toward state- and locally defined goals for drug and violence prevention. Education plans to provide information from these components, except the survey of LEAs, to the Congress in January 1998. No date has been established for reporting results of the local survey.

-------------------- \19 Under the previous Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, Education sponsored a number of studies on drug-prevention activities. These studies included a required biennial survey of SEAs that obtained information on program characteristics and state administrative activities, an assessment of student outcomes in drug-prevention programs, and a longitudinal study of drug-prevention activities in 19 school districts that provided information on promising practices and program effectiveness.

NATIONAL STUDIES PROVIDE INFORMATION ON SCHOOL VIOLENCE-PREVENTION ACTIVITIES -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4.1

Education, in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice, has begun to evaluate the impact of violence-prevention programs as required by the act.\20

The evaluation is designed to describe the types of activities funded with federal violence-prevention moneys, including Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds, and to identify the most promising practices among these activities. To acquire this information, the evaluation will compare matched pairs of schools with similar characteristics, but dissimilar safety profiles, to determine why the schools differ on certain safety measures. The evaluation should provide information about the effectiveness of specific interventions, officials told us, such as peer mediation, as well as broader influences on program effectiveness, such as school order and organization and class size. It will not describe the effectiveness of specific Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs nationwide.

In addition to evaluating violence-prevention programs, Education, through its Center for National Education Statistics, is gathering descriptive data on violence in the nation's schools. The data were obtained by survey from a nationally representative sample of schools and, in conjunction with existing national databases, will provide detailed information on the extent and nature of violence in schools.

-------------------- \20 Education's collaboration with the National Institute of Justice, a part of the U.S. Department of Justice, will build on and expand a National Institute of Justice study. Education officials say the collaborative effort will allow the inclusion of more programs in the study.

LOCAL SURVEY ON PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT PLANNED -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4.2

Although not required by the act, Education officials told us they plan to survey a nationally representative sample of LEAs participating in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program to examine program improvement at the local level. The survey, designed to gain information about LEAs' assessment of program effectiveness and their use of such information in ongoing program implementation, will ask LEAs to report the goals and objectives established for their Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs and the measures they use to assess progress toward these goals. Though plans for the survey have not been completed, Education officials report that this survey should be the first of periodically administered surveys to obtain this information.

STATE TRIENNIAL REPORTS -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4.3

The state-level reports on program effectiveness required by the act are likely to be the primary source of information about Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs' effectiveness, both nationally and locally. Education-- though not required to do so--has provided states with suggested program performance indicators that may be used to assess and report program effectiveness. However, it is uncertain to what extent data from these indicators will provide information about the effectiveness of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs. First, states do not have to use Education's indicators but may develop and use their own indicators. Second, though the indicators were made available to states in draft form in August 1996, states did not receive the completed data collection instrument until December 1996. As a result, variability in state data collection efforts may prevent some states from providing the desired information, and Education officials acknowledge this. Expecting difficulties in aggregating data from the state-level reports, the Department is working with a private contractor to categorize and summarize the data. Education officials expect state data to conform more closely with Education's performance indicators, they said, as states become more familiar with the form and have a chance to adjust their own data collection systems.

Although the act requires reports every 3 years, Education is providing states with a mechanism to furnish yearly information. Education has no information yet to estimate how many states, if any, will provide information more often than every 3 years.

STATES REVIEW AND APPROVE LOCAL PLANS AND MONITOR ACTIVITIES ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Nearly all states use approved local plans as the primary means for ensuring a local program's compliance with the act's requirements as well as a variety of other methods. States' use of the plans to ensure compliance often begins when LEAs submit their plans for state approval, with states using the approval process to ensure that a LEA's planned program conforms with the act's requirements. Once local plans have been approved, state officials monitor local programs, they said, using site visits, telephone contacts, and reviews of reports submitted by LEAs of their program activities and expenditures. A few states reported using a combination of these methods to oversee local programs.

STATE PRACTICES EMPHASIZE PLANNING AND CONFORMANCE TO PLANS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

States must approve local plans before a LEA may receive its Safe and Drug-Free Schools grant. State approval, however, is not automatic. Ninety-six percent of the state officials responding to our survey said some LEAs had to revise their plans to obtain state approval. A plan could be judged unacceptable for minor or rather major reasons, state officials told us. For example, a plan lacking all the appropriate signatures might require only minor revisions. Other plans, however, such as those lacking measurable goals and objectives or those with budgets that were incongruent with the planned program activities, might require more substantial revision. Most local plans, however, are eventually successfully revised and gain state approval. In school year 1995-96, only a small percentage of LEAs did not receive Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding because their plans were not approved, state officials told us.

STATE PROCESS VARIES FOR REVIEW OF LEA PLANS -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1.1

The act requires states to use a peer review or other method of ensuring the quality of applications. More than half the states use a peer review process. Officials in 29 states told us they use a peer review process; in 19 of those states, the peer reviewers' decisions are binding. The composition of peer review panels varies by state. In some states, peer review panel members include representatives from the LEAs. Georgia and Virginia, for example, are among the states that reported using LEA representatives as peer reviewers. In other states, such as Colorado, Alabama, and Idaho, peer reviewers come from diverse groups such as the SEA's staff, Safe and Drug-Free Schools advisory group, and local drug-prevention experts. States that reported using no peer review panel told us that SEA officials review and approve local plans.

In the states we visited, officials use their review of local plans to ensure that LEAs' planned activities conform with the act's requirements. West Virginia's coordinator told us that she reviews each local plan for compliance. In Michigan, state officials must certify in writing that each approved local plan conforms with the act's requirements. We heard similar anecdotal evidence when we spoke with our survey respondents. For example, officials in Arizona and Nebraska also reported reviewing local plans for compliance as part of the local plan approval process.

STATES USE VARIETY OF MECHANISMS TO MONITOR LOCAL PROGRAMS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

States reported that they monitor local activities and expenditures, in accordance with the act, using a variety of mechanisms, such as site visits and document reviews. Most state Safe and Drug-Free Schools officials who use site visits to monitor said site visits are the most effective method for monitoring LEA activities. Documents reviewed by states include program and expenditure reports from LEAs. States use the local plan to monitor program compliance as well as to develop the framework for site visit observations. A few state officials also cited several barriers to monitoring local activities. The most prominent of these are resource shortages, that is, lack of staff and time.

State officials oversee local programs by visiting LEAs, reviewing LEAs' program and expenditure reports, as well as making phone contacts. In school year 1995-96, state officials in 48 states\21 and Puerto Rico reported making more than 1,900 site visits to local programs; 18 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia used site visits more frequently than any other oversight method. Although 22 states reported making regular site visits, 12 states selected the sites they visited randomly. Nineteen states reported visiting sites on the basis of LEA requests or complaints. States also selected sites to visit on the basis of other criteria such as the need for technical assistance, the amount of carryover funds, and whether the LEA had received additional funding because it was considered "high need."

When asked how often they expected to perform site visits to local programs, 16 states that performed site visits in school year 1995-96 said they expected to visit each local program once every 3 years. Only 3 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico expected yearly visits; 19 states said they expected to visit programs every 3 to 4 years. Site visits include a wide range of activities, from reviewing program records to on-site observations, state officials told us. Most of the states that conducted site visits in school year 1995-96, however, reported the following common activities: examining program and financial records; reviewing the local curriculum; and interviewing staff, students, and parents.

In addition to site visits, state officials in 31 states and the District of Columbia said they oversee local programs by reviewing documents provided by LEAs. Nine states reported this as the most often used monitoring method. Only five states reported using phone calls or technical assistance contacts as the most often used method for monitoring local activities. (See table III.6 in app. III.)

The states we visited use most of the mechanisms cited by our survey respondents to monitor LEAs' program activities and expenditures. For example, Michigan and West Virginia use site visits and reviews of LEAs' program and expenditure reports to ensure that programs are implemented in compliance with the act. West Virginia's coordinator told us she also uses telephone contacts as a monitoring mechanism. Virginia's coordinator, citing staff shortages as the reason the state could not visit sites in school year 1995-96, said the state relies on its review of LEA expenditure reports to monitor LEA programs. Although the three states' local reporting requirements differ somewhat, each state requires LEAs to submit an annual progress report, including information on their programs' activities and expenditures as well as expenditure reports.

State officials have established standard policies and procedures for site visits, our research revealed. Michigan's Office of Drug Control Policy, for example, has developed a "Local Program Review Guide" that SEA staff must use when monitoring LEA sites. The guide has specific questions about the local program's characteristics, such as curriculum content, parental involvement, and the local advisory council. The state reviewer must document findings for each characteristic. The guide also specifies the type of documentation to be used. West Virginia has also written policies and procedures to guide monitoring practices. In addition to reviewing program records, West Virginia's State and Drug-Free School coordinator said she conducts interviews with local program administrators and actually observes program activities. Beginning in the 1996-97 school year, she told us, she also plans to include a review of local vouchers in her site visit activities in response to a recommendation by the state auditor.

-------------------- \21 Because Hawaii has only one LEA, it is not a part of these analyses. Rhode Island reported that it does not monitor LEAs.

PERIODIC FISCAL AND PROGRAM REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS REQUIRED ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

LOCAL PROGRAM AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS HELP STATES MONITOR LEA PROGRAMS -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3.1

As permitted under the act, all states we surveyed had established reporting requirements for LEAs receiving Safe and Drug- Free Schools funds. Generally, states most often rely on annual reporting, although a few states require semiannual or monthly reporting. For example, 36 states reported that they require LEAs to provide an annual progress report. Three states require more frequent reports. Twenty-eight states said they require an annual expenditure report; 17 states require LEAs to report on their expenditures more frequently. In addition, seven reported that they require monitoring reports of LEAs when the LEAs visit program sites.

In addition to these requirements, most states require LEAs to submit a report documenting their expenditures before the state releases funding to them. Twenty-six of the states distribute funds on a reimbursement basis, they said. LEAs use their own funds to pay program costs and are later reimbursed for their expenditures by the state. The timing and information requirements of these reports vary, with some states requiring a more detailed explanation of spending than others. For example, Michigan Safe and Drug-Free Schools officials require LEAs to report just the total amount of money spent as of the date the state requests reimbursement. In contrast, South Dakota requires LEAs to send in copies of their vouchers before being reimbursed for program funds, according to state officials.

EVALUATIONS -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3.2

States must obtain information from LEAs for the required triennial reports to Education describing the implementation, outcomes, effectiveness, and progress of state-level and LEA-operated programs. At the time of our survey, however, many states had little information about the extent and nature of program evaluation activities at the local level. For example, of those state officials who reported local evaluation activities, many did not know the number of LEAs conducting evaluations or the objectives and activities of the LEA evaluations. In addition, we asked state officials what information they planned to include in their triennial reports. Many of the state officials who responded to this question told us they either had not determined what information they would include in their report or that they would include whatever information Education required of them.

SEAS AND LEAS REPORT VARIED USES OF FUNDS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

As permitted under the act, SEAs and LEAs use Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds for a variety of activities. Although states often require LEAs to report on their expenditures, the reported data are seldom routinely aggregated to provide a statewide picture of Safe and Drug-Free Schools spending. State officials do not aggregate expenditure data, they told us, because no reporting requirement exists for them to do so.

Although states use their program funds to provide a variety of services, in most states, training and technical assistance for LEA staff and others, including parents, is a frequent investment (see fig. 2 and table III.2 in app. III). Forty-five states and Puerto Rico said they use a portion of their state program funds in this way. Other categories of expenditures reported by many states include curriculum development and acquisition (32 states), violence prevention (27 states), and state-level program evaluation (22 states). Other activities reported included demonstration projects (18 states) or activities to provide cost-effective programs to LEAs (20 states).

Figure 2: Nationwide, Most States Use Safe and Drug-Free Schools Money for Staff Training

(See figure in printed edition.)

Note: The state activities categories are those used in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to describe allowable activities.

LEAs provide a broad range of activities to students with Safe and Drug-Free Schools program funds, according to state officials (see fig. 3). These activities include drug-prevention instruction (provided by 91 percent of the LEAs) and violence-prevention instruction (provided by 68 percent of LEAs) and staff training on new drug-prevention techniques and use of new curriculum materials; special one-time events, such as a guest speaker, or drug- and alcohol-free social activities, such as a dance or picnic; parent education/involvement; student support services, such as counseling and referral services; and curriculum development and acquisition. Ninety-one percent of LEAs provide drug-prevention instruction. Staff training is the next most offered activity, with 77 percent of districts reporting such training.

Figure 3: Most LEAs Provide Drug-Prevention Instruction and Staff Training With Safe and Drug-Free Schools Funds

(See figure in printed edition.)

Note: The LEA service categories are those used by the U.S. Department of Education in its survey of SEAs for school year 1996-97.

CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one of several substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs funded by the federal government. The major purpose of the programs is to help the nation's schools provide a disciplined environment conducive to learning by eliminating violence in and around schools and preventing illegal drug use. States and localities have wide discretion in designing and implementing programs funded under the act. They are held accountable for achieving the goals and objectives they set as well as for the federal dollars they spend.

As permitted under the act, states and localities are delivering a wide range of activities and services. Likewise, accountability mechanisms have been established and appear to be operating in ways consistent with the act.

The lack of uniform information on program activities and effectiveness may, however, create a problem for federal oversight. First, with no requirement that states use a consistent set of measures, the Department faces a difficult challenge in assembling the triennial reports so that a nationwide picture of the program's effectiveness emerges. Second, although Education provides a mechanism for states to report information annually, under the act, nationwide information on effectiveness and program activities may only be available every 3 years, which may not be often enough for congressional oversight.

AGENCY COMMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

The Department of Education provided written comments on a draft of this report, and we incorporated, where appropriate, technical clarifications it suggested. In addition, the Department expressed concern about our observations on the multiple programs designed to address youth violence and drug abuse. In the Department's view, "the discussion of the numerous Federal programs designed to reduce or eliminate youth drug use or violence treats the topic too generally. While other Federal programs may address various aspects of these two very serious problems, we know of no other Federal program that provides widely available, sustained support to schools to prevent or reduce youth drug use or violence. The draft fails to provide detailed information about these other, numerous Federal programs, and reaches a tentative conclusion about duplication and effectiveness that is not supported by this draft report."

We did not revise our reference to the multiple programs in response to this comment because (1) we state only that the potential for duplication exists among these multiple, nonintegrated programs and (2) we also state that we did not fully examine these programs to document the extent to which this may be true for drug and violence programs. In addition, this background information provides what we consider to be an important general context for considering the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. The additional detail about the other programs has been reported in our other products cited in the footnotes.

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate House and Senate committees and other interested parties. Please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L. Johnson on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Carlotta C. Joyner Director, Education and Employment Issues

SITE VISIT REPORTS =========================================================== Appendix I

MICHIGAN --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The key issue in this allegation--that the state improperly used federal drug education funding to implement a comprehensive health curriculum--resulted from a state legislative review of the Michigan Department of Education's implementation of a comprehensive school health curriculum. The state review, which had been prompted by parents' concerns about the curriculum content, uncovered questionable expenditures of federal drug-prevention funding under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act for curriculum materials not related to drug education as well as questionable fiscal practices. In addition to the legislative review, Michigan's Director of Drug Control Policy conducted his own investigation. His review and that of the state auditor concluded that many of the expenditures for the comprehensive school health curriculum violated federal requirements for federal drug-prevention funding.

As a result of the state auditor's adverse audit findings, the U.S. Department of Education became involved. Federal officials reviewed the audit findings and issued final rulings on whether the expenditures under question violated federal requirements. Although state auditors questioned the expenditures for the comprehensive health curriculum, upon obtaining further information from state officials,\22 Education found these expenditures acceptable. Education, however, did find that the Michigan Department of Education had violated other federal requirements in managing federal drug-prevention funding. The 1994 passage of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act contained an administrative provision that authorized the use of Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding and, retroactively, the use of Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funding for comprehensive health programs.

-------------------- \22 Education questioned Michigan Department of Education officials about the proportion of the comprehensive health curriculum devoted to drug education and the proportion of federal drug-prevention funding spent for the curriculum.

THE FACTS REVIEWED ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

Between 1992 and 1994, members of the state legislature and the director of Michigan's Office of Drug Control Policy charged Michigan state education officials with improperly using federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funding to implement a statewide comprehensive school health program. The program, called the Michigan Model for Comprehensive School Health Education, sought to educate students about maintaining health and included a drug education component. The program sparked controversy when parents statewide expressed opposition to their state representatives.

In response to these complaints, state legislators launched their own inquiry. During their investigations, legislators came to question the appropriateness and legality of using federal Drug-Free Schools funding to implement a comprehensive health education program. In addition, they uncovered questionable administrative practices and expenditures made with Drug-Free Schools funding.

In 1994, the Family Law, Mental Health and Corrections Committee of the Michigan State Legislature released a report of its investigation into the Michigan Department of Education's management of federal Drug-Free Schools funding. The Committee examined seven issues, concluding that the Michigan Department of Education (1)"diverted" federal Drug-Free Schools funds "to activity not related to drug prevention" and (2) illegally restricted local school districts' discretion in using their drug education funds. The Committee also concluded that "a history of poor grant management and oversight by the department of education" had occurred and found that greater accountability was needed to ensure the proper uses of public funds.\23 Among its recommendations, the Committee called for performance audits of Drug-Free Schools grantees and state-level agencies involved with Drug-Free Schools program expenditures.

The Committee's findings echoed the findings of earlier investigations by the state's Office of Drug Control Policy. Calling the Michigan Model's implementation the "Michigan Morass," the Director of the Michigan Office of Drug Control Policy asserted that the problem rested in "how funds diverted to it were obtained and administered," especially federal Drug-Free Schools funds.\24 The many problems cited by the director included questionable bidding practices on competitive contracts, potential "double-dipping" by state employees who served as both program coordinators and paid consultants, and the purchase of curriculum materials not directly related to the drug education components of the Michigan Model. According to him, these purchases included giant toothbrushes, a human torso model, dog bone kits, and bicycle pumps.

Because of the state audit findings, the issue of the use of Drug-Free Schools funds for delivering a drug education program through a comprehensive school health curriculum came before the U.S. Department of Education for resolution. Specifically, state auditors had found that (1) the Michigan Department of Education failed to "appropriately document to what extent Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (Drug Free Schools) funds could be used to fund comprehensive health education programs in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements," and (2) "the level of funding provided by [the act] to support the Michigan Model exceeds the relative weight of drug abuse education and prevention criteria contained in the Michigan Model."\25 Federal education officials did not sustain these findings.

Education's rejection of these findings rested on its analysis of the federal law, provisions of nonregulatory guidance, and a 1991 ruling by Education's Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education on the issue. Citing federal nonregulatory guidance on this issue, Education pointed out that LEAs may include drug abuse education and prevention in a comprehensive health education program, but the expenditure of Drug- Free Schools funds is limited to the drug abuse education and prevention program components. Education also noted that the guidance did not "specify particular methods to be used in determining the proportionate share of a comprehensive health education program to be funded by the Drug Free Schools Act."\26 Referring to its previous ruling, Education said the Michigan Department of Education had demonstrated through an analysis of the Michigan Model's curriculum content that the level of Drug-Free Schools funding for the Model was consistent with the Model's level of drug abuse education and prevention content.

Though the state auditor challenged the Michigan Department of Education's methodology for determining program content, Education ruled that "the auditors provided no evidence to demonstrate that the methods used by the subcommittee were in violation of any statutory or regulatory requirements."\27 Education concluded, "Consequently, there is insufficient information to establish that the [Michigan State Department of Education] has violated the requirements contained in the [Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act] and other applicable regulations related to the proportionate use of these funds for the Michigan Model."

Though Education officials rejected auditors' findings on the uses of Drug-Free Schools funds for implementation of the Michigan Model, it sustained audit findings on several other points. In brief, Education sustained audit findings that the Michigan Department of Education failed to (1) respect the broad discretion granted local grantees in developing their drug education programs, (2) ensure that LEA grant application requirements were fulfilled, and (3) evaluate programs in accordance with federal requirements. The Department required the state to take appropriate corrective actions.

-------------------- \23 Final Report, Michigan Department of Education's Management of Federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Funds, Family Law, Mental Health and Corrections Committee, Michigan State Legislature (Lansing, Mich.: Dec. 29, 1994).

\24 Senate Testimony and Final Drug Education Report, Office of Drug Control Policy (Lansing, Mich.: Oct. 12, 1993).

\25 Letter of Determination dated Sept. 28, 1995, from Thomas W. Payzant, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, to Arthur Ellis, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan.

\26 Determination Letter dated Sept. 28, 1995, from Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.

\27 Determination Letter dated Sept. 28, 1995, from Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U. S. Department of Education.

VIRGINIA --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

A LEA's use of Drug-Free Schools funding to provide out-of-town training for members of its school/community coalitions led to concerns that these expenditures did not meet federal criteria. Although the Drug-Free Schools Act permitted a wide range of activities, state and local education agencies were also required to adhere to the Education Department's General Administrative Regulations. These regulations include a requirement that costs be "necessary and reasonable" and discuss the allowability of certain kinds of costs.

The state learned of the allegation when a caller reported the alleged misuse of funds to the Governor's Fraud Hotline. The complaint was forwarded to the Virginia Department of Education's internal auditor for an investigation, which included interviews with local officials and a review of county auditors' report on the LEA's expenditures. Ultimately, state officials concluded the expenditures were allowable under federal requirements but expressed concern about the appearance of fiscal impropriety. The entire matter was resolved without federal intervention.

THE FACTS REVIEWED ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

In 1995, the Governor's Office, through its fraud hotline, received an allegation charging the Fairfax County Public Schools with the misuse of Drug-Free Schools funds. An anonymous caller to the hotline alleged that Fairfax County school district officials were using federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (Drug-Free Schools) funds for staff training sessions at an expensive summer resort. The call was referred to the Virginia State Department of Education's internal auditor for investigation.

State officials learned that the Fairfax County Public Schools had sponsored a total of 11 training sessions--each for 2-1/2 days--between March 1994 and April 1995 in St. Michael's, Maryland. The sessions, designed to facilitate the formation of school-community coalitions to support and enhance school-based drug use prevention activities, trained community representatives, business owners, school board members, alternative school staff, and members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. In all, the district trained 876 individuals at a total cost of $181,397.71, or $207 per participant, according to Fairfax County public school officials.

In the course of their investigation, state officials also learned that the district's fiscal year 1994 expenditures had been audited to determine if Fairfax County Public Schools' Drug-Free Schools and Communities grant was being administered in compliance with federal and state requirements. The subsequent audit report discussed the expenditures for the district's training sessions in St. Michael's. Auditors concluded that federal statutes had not been violated but stated the training sessions could be seen as excessive, unnecessary, and social in nature and cited Education Department General Administrative Regulations requirements that expenditures be "necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient administration of the grant." The auditors cited the Regulations' requirements that the grant not authorize expenditures for entertainment or social activities, including "costs for amusements, social activities, meals, beverages, lodging, rentals, transportation and gratuities." Although the auditors concluded that the training expenses had been reasonable--the room expenses were no more than an average hotel room in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, and meals had been reasonably priced--they questioned the need to hold the training sessions out of state.

On the basis of the local auditor's findings and information obtained from district officials, Virginia State Department of Education officials concluded the costs for the St. Michael's training sessions were reasonable. Though commending the LEA's "School/Community Action Team" concept, state officials cautioned the district to take special precautions in guaranteeing that the district's activities and expenditures were viewed by the school as necessary, reasonable, and consistent with the purposes of the Drug-Free Schools grant. The state fully reimbursed the district for each training session after the audit findings were discussed, and the state made procedural changes to avoid a similar incident in the future.

WEST VIRGINIA --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

The key issue in this allegation--that the state failed to ensure that local programs deliver a clear "no use" message and that locals comply with federal requirements for expenditures and financial management--has been addressed by federal reviews of state and local activities under the Drug-Free Schools Act. Regarding the lack of a "no use" message, federal officials found that insufficient evidence existed to support this claim. As noted previously, federal officials did observe instances of noncompliance with financial management requirements. However, both the SEA and the LEA have taken steps to correct these problems.

THE FACTS REVIEWED ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

In March 1995, the Chief Counsel of the House Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice met with a West Virginia parent to discuss her concerns about drug education and prevention programs. In subsequent correspondence with the Chief Counsel, the parent reiterated her concerns, charging a lack of accountability on federal officials' part in ensuring state and local compliance with the Drug-Free Schools Act. Local officials, she said, implemented a curriculum teaching "that only abuse of a drug is harmful, leading our youth to believe and implying that moderation and occasional use of cocaine, marijuana, or alcohol might be an acceptable choice for themselves." The parent also said she had withdrawn her children from her district's drug-education program but expressed concern for children still enrolled in the program.

The parent's letter to the Chief Counsel was not the first expression of her concern about West Virginia's implementation of the Drug-Free Schools Act. For example, she asked federal officials in the U.S. Department of Education in 1991 to conduct a formal investigation of the QUEST curriculum used by her West Virginia school district, Jefferson County.\28 Characterizing the curriculum as "non-directive," she said she objected to the curriculum's lessons in self-esteem and values clarification. The concerns she raised ultimately resulted in a program review by Education's Drug-Free Schools officials and a limited-scope audit by Education's Inspector General (IG). In addition, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, at this same parent's request, reviewed the QUEST curriculum to assess its compliance with federal statutes. Both entities concluded that the curriculum violated no federal statutes.

Federal officials performed two site reviews of Drug-Free Schools programs in West Virginia. The first, conducted in 1992, was performed in response to allegations that the county violated federal requirements when it failed to adopt and implement a program to prevent students' use of illicit drugs and alcohol.\29 As part of their review, federal officials interviewed appropriate state and local educational agency personnel and examined relevant texts and other materials. As a result of this review, a Department official concluded in September 1992 "that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Jefferson County does offer a drug prevention program for students in all grades."

Education officials conducted another review of West Virginia's Drug-Free Schools program, focusing on SEA activities, in 1994.\30 The review uncovered several problems with administrative practices, including the following:

-- The West Virginia Department of Education incorrectly calculated LEA awards in fiscal years 1993 and 1994.

-- LEA applications failed to require all the information and assurances specified by the federal statute.

-- LEA applications did not, but should, include information that allowed the SEA to assess the use of Drug-Free Schools funds at the local level.

-- The West Virginia Department of Education failed to separately account for program activities and expenditures versus administrative activities and expenditures.

-- The West Virginia Department of Education may wish to require receipts or other evidence from LEAs before reimbursing funds for program activities.

The report also noted significant improvements in the state's monitoring of and technical assistance to LEAs. In addition, federal officials commended the West Virginia Department of Education on its peer review process.

In 1995, Education's IG performed a limited-scope audit of selected aspects of Regional Education Service Agency VIII's (RESA VIII) administration of the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act programs to determine if the agency was administering the federal Drug-Free Schools program in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations. Overall, the IG found the agency's internal controls for providing management with reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit correct financial reporting--sufficient for the Drug-Free Schools program.\31

The IG cited two cases of material noncompliance with federal laws and regulations, however. First, RESA VIII had failed to fulfill requirements of the federal Single Audit Act of 1984 by not conducting annual audits. Second, RESA VIII used an inappropriate indirect cost rate during fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994 when it based its indirect cost on that of its fiscal agent, Berkeley County. The IG's recommendations included instructions to both the RESA and the state. Recommendations to RESA VIII included (1) that the agency develop appropriate, reasonable indirect cost rates for fiscal years 1992 through 1994 and (2) obtain audits for all years required in accordance with the federal Single Audit Act and applicable regulations. The IG also recommended that the West Virginia Department of Education (1) cease requiring grantees of federal funds to use inappropriate indirect cost rates, (2) require RESA VIII to develop and submit to the West Virginia Department of Education its own indirect cost rate in accordance with federal requirements, and (3) require RESA VIII and all other RESAs to report to the Department their indirect cost rate audit results.

METHODOLOGY

To address your concerns about Safe and Drug-Free Schools' accountability provisions and their implementation, we asked four questions: (1) What accountability measures are required under the act at the federal, state, and local levels? (2) What activities are used by Education for overseeing state and local programs? (3) How do SEAs ensure local programs' compliance with the act? and (4) What specific uses are made of Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding at the state and local levels?

To determine what is required under the act, we reviewed relevant documents, such as the act and its legislative history, relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, and other related legislation.

To assess what actions Education is taking, we followed up on allegations of impropriety in three states (Michigan, Virginia and West Virginia), reviewing documentation and interviewing state and local officials involved in the original incident and in the investigation and resolution (see app. I for a description of each of these site visits). We also reviewed documents at Education's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and interviewed Department officials.

In addition, we reviewed Department of Education state files for 16 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These state files included documentation, such as a copy of the state's plan, the reviewers' comments, materials from the state responding to Education's request for supplemental information, and grant award documents. States were selected using a stratified, random sample.

To select states for site visits, we used two main techniques to help identify allegations. First, we followed up on leads provided by correspondence to a member of the Congress. For example, a set of seven letters given to us alleged improper use of funds. We reviewed these letters and called all seven authors to clarify their complaints. On the basis of the letters and phone calls, we eliminated six of these allegations from our investigation because they concerned curriculum issues. Because the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act makes curriculum a state and local issue-- the Secretary of Education is specifically prohibited from prescribing or proscribing specific materials or approaches--curriculum could not be used as a basis for inappropriate use of federal funds. We did visit the site of the seventh allegation--West Virginia. We also chose the West Virginia program because it had been audited by the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Education and was the subject of other Department of Education reviews, providing us with much information that could be reviewed in a relatively short time. Second, in reviewing the legislative history, we found that a floor debate in the House had mentioned a number of other allegations. One, the alleged misuse of funds in Virginia for training retreats held in a resort location in Maryland, had been the subject of investigations, giving us ample data to review. Therefore, we chose Virginia for a site visit. Finally, the use of Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act program funds in Michigan for a comprehensive health program had already prompted a large state-level investigation. We chose Michigan for a site visit because of the importance of this investigation.

To determine what oversight was required and assess accountability activities at the state and local level, we surveyed the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico about their activities, receiving information from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.\32

Although we did not verify the data the states supplied us, we did review supporting documentation they provided and used our site visits to Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia to collect examples of how the law was being implemented and to observe accountability practices at the state and local level. Most information about state accountability, however, collected through the questionnaire and follow-up phone calls was reported by SEAs. Our work was conducted from February 1996 to May 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix III DATA ON SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS

The tables in this appendix provide information, by state, on selected aspects of states' Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs. Table III.1 provides the amount of each SEA's school year 1995-96 allocation; tables III.2, III.3, III.4, and III.5 provide information on the activities funded by Safe and Drug-Free Schools grants. Information about state accountability mechanisms, such as methods used for monitoring and distributing funds, appears in tables III.6 and III.8. Table III.7 provides information on private school participation in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Table III.9 provides information on how states selected their neediest districts.

Table III.1

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Funding Amount by State, School Year 1995-96

(Dollars in millions)

State grant State amount -------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Alabama $5.8 Alaska 1.7 Arizona 5.1 Arkansas 3.5 California 38.4 Colorado 4.1 Connecticut 3.2 Delaware 1.7 District of Columbia 1.7 Florida 14.8 Georgia 8.6 Hawaii 1.7 Idaho 1.7 Illinois 15.1 Indiana 6.2 Iowa 3.1 Kansas 2.9 Kentucky 5.5 Louisiana 7.7 Maine 1.7 Maryland 5.1 Massachusetts 6.4 Michigan 13.6 Minnesota 5.1 Mississippi 5.0 Missouri 6.3 Montana 1.7 Nebraska 1.9 Nevada 1.7 New Hampshire 1.7 New Jersey 8.4 New Mexico 2.7 New York 26.0 North Carolina 7.4 North Dakota 1.7 Ohio 14.4 Oklahoma 4.3 Oregon 3.5 Pennsylvania 14.7 Puerto Rico 9.3 Rhode Island 1.7 South Carolina 4.6 South Dakota 1.7 Tennessee 6.2 Texas 27.4 Utah 2.5 Vermont 1.7 Virginia 6.4 Washington 5.8 West Virginia 2.7 Wisconsin 6.3 Wyoming 1.7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table III.2

Percent of Funds Used for Various Activities by SEAs, School Year 1995-96

Violence training/ Evaluation LEA cost- technical at state- Staff training/technical effective Demonstratio assistance/ Special LEA level State assistance Curriculum programs n projects prejudice grants activities ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------- ------------ ------------ Alabama 55 10 5 5 20 0 5 Alaska 80 8 0 0 12 0 0 Arizona 70 20 10 0 0 0 0 Arkansas 15 5 0 80 0 0 0 California 34 8 9 5 8 0 36 Colorado 50 0 0 4 25 20 1 Connecticut 65 10 0 0 25 0 0 Delaware 25 35 10 15 5 10 0 District of Columbia 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Florida 70 1 1 4 0 23 1 Georgia 90 0 0 0 0 8 2 Hawaii 40 20 5 15 10 5 0 Idaho 70 0 0 0 5 0 25 Illinois 20 10 0 50 0 10 10 Indiana 70 10 10 5 0 5 0 Iowa 19 0 0 0 0 0 81 Kansas 59 2 35 0 4 0 0 Kentucky\a Louisiana 97 3 0 0 0 0 0 Maine 40 30 20 0 10 0 0 Maryland 98 0 2 0 0 0 0 Massachusetts 80 0 0 0 20 0 0 Michigan 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minnesota 60 10 0 0 30 0 0 Mississippi 65 15 10 5 5 0 0 Missouri 27 4 69 0 0 0 0 Montana 55 10 0 0 20 10 5 Nebraska 55 9 5 12 5 9 5 Nevada 35 25 25 5 5 0 5 New Hampshire 50 10 30 5 5 0 0 New Jersey\a New Mexico\b 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 New York 75 0 0 0 25 0 0 North Carolina 80 10 0 0 0 0 10 North Dakota 54 0 0 0 44 2 0 Ohio\a Oklahoma 90 2 2 2 2 1 1 Oregon 50 10 2 3 25 5 5 Pennsylvania 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Puerto Rico 20 17 0 0 20 40 3 Rhode Island 37 15 0 22 16 0 10 South Carolina\a South Dakota 80 1 0 0 5 0 14 Tennessee 60 0 10 30 0 0 0 Texas\c Utah 35 60 0 0 0 0 5 Vermont 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia 95 5 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 85 0 0 0 0 10 5 West Virginia 29 17 23 0 20 1 10 Wisconsin 75 10 0 0 10 0 5 Wyoming 40 20 10 0 10 10 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a No data available.

\b The remaining 4 percent of the funds were carried over to 1996.

\c All funds were provided to Educational Service Centers to fund Safe and Drug-Free Schools Education Service Center contact positions.

Table III.3

Percent of LEAs in Each State Providing Selected Services, School Year 1995-96- -Teacher/Staff Training, Drug- Prevention Instruction, Violence- Prevention Instruction, Curriculum Development/Acquisitions, and Student Support Services

Teacher/ Drug- Violence- Curriculum Student State staff prevention prevention development/ support \a training instruction instruction acquisitions services ----- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Alaba 90 100 100 100 80 ma Alask 30 95 45 60 20 a Arizo 80 80 50 30 70 na Arkan 95 99 98 10 60 sas Calif 50 95 60 50 50 ornia Color 100 100 100 75 70 ado Conne 65 100 70 85 60 ctic ut Delaw 100 100 100 80 100 are Flori da\b Georg 98 100 75 60 60 ia Idaho 100 100 75 100 100 Illin 80 80 90 50 60 ois India 100 100 80 80 100 na Iowa 50 68 36 50 0 Kansa 93 100 0 86 100 s Kentu 100 100 100 90 45 cky Louis 100 100 100 100 5 iana Maine 45 95 55 15 55 Maryl 95 100 0 87 100 and Massa 70 90 60 60 30 chus etts Michi 100 100 50 100 40 gan Minne 90 100 85 50 75 sota Missi 80 97 80 90 75 ssip pi Misso 95 100 90 70 60 uri Monta 85 100 85 85 85 na Nebra 96 100 100 96 91 ska Nevad 82 82 70 50 60 a New 75 98 50 60 40 Hamp shir e New Jers ey\b New 70 100 60 15 85 Mexi co New York \c North 100 100 100 95 100 Caro lina North 78 77 77 64 38 Dako ta Ohio 74 92 58 62 56 Oklah 80 100 40 30 50 oma Orego 85 100 80 50 95 n Penns 60 80 40 30 95 ylva nia Rhode 63 100 55 72 83 Isla nd South 100 100 70 85 80 Caro lina South 100 100 50 85 80 Dako ta Tenne 70 80 40 30 30 ssee Texas 80 88 \b 69 61 Utah 100 100 100 100 100 Vermo 90 100 60 100 90 nt Virgi 75 80 80 63 62 nia Washi 70 80 80 60 80 ngton West 59 100 \d 43 100 Virg inia Wisco 15 40 5 10 5 nsin Wyomi 40 30 5 40 70 ng -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a The District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not included because they each have one LEA. See app. I.

\b Data were collected by state but were not available at the time of our survey.

\c LEAs provided this information to the state; however, the data were not aggregated at the state level.

\d No knowledge.

Table III.4

Percent of LEAs in Each State Providing Selected Services, School Year 1995-96- -Alternative Education Programs, Parent Education/Involvement, After-or Before- School Programs, Community Service Projects, and Out-of-School Youth Services

After-or Alternative Parent before- Community Out-of- State education education/ school service school youth \a programs involvement programs projects services ----- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Alaba 70 100 70 80 25 ma Alask 5 15 0 5 10 a Arizo 35 80 40 40 \b na Arkan 50 50 10 20 10 sas Calif 70 90 60 30 \b ornia Color 50 80 25 40 60 ado Conne 25 35 50 15 0 ctic ut Delaw 100 100 80 90 0 are Flori da\b Georg 25 50 15 15 10 ia Idaho 40 100 25 20 40 Illin 0 90 10 10 0 ois India 35 100 100 30 \b na Iowa 0 0 46 0 0 Kansa 40 82 34 34 10 s Kentu 60 65 25 10 5 cky Louis 3 60 0 0 0 iana Maine 5 28 8 2 2 Maryl 75 100 87 87 75 and Massa 10 50 20 0 0 chus etts Michi 20 32 57 58 0 gan Minne 10 50 10 33 10 sota Missi 100 50 15 20 1 ssip pi Misso 40 30 55 95 5 uri Monta 35 75 40 50 15 ta Nebra 33 81 37 51 11 ska Nevad 70 70 50 40 25 a New 10 75 10 10 1 Hamp shir e New Jers ey\b New 25 40 25 25 5 Mexi co New York \c North 90 95 60 90 15 Caro lina North 4 62 5 41 1 Dako ta Ohio 19 58 24 30 2 Oklah 5 80 10 5 5 oma Orego 30 60 25 15 5 n Penns 20 25 15 15 10 ylva nia Rhode 8 55 3 0 1 Isla nd South 35 100 33 25 0 Caro lina South 8 60 20 20 0 Dako ta Tenne 5 25 5 10 5 ssee Texas 28 64 24 26 7 Utah 100 100 80 100 70 Vermo 5 90 25 10 2 nt Virgi 22 50 16 28 8 nia Washi 20 40 40 60 20 ngton West 2 48 43 16 36 Virg inia Wisco 1 1 1 0 0 nsin Wyomi 10 60 5 10 2 ng -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a The District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not included because they each have one LEA. See app. I.

\b Data were collected by state but were not available at the time of our survey.

\c LEAs provided this information to the state; however, the data were not aggregated at the state level.

Table III.5

Percent of LEAs in Each State Providing Selected Services, School Year 1995-96- -Special, One-Time Events, Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation, Security Staff, Security Equipment, and Other

Conflict resolution/ State Special, one- peer Security Security \a time events mediation staff equipment Other ----- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Alaba 100 50 15 5 0 ma Alask 60 40 0 0 0 a Arizo 80 60 3 16 2 na Arkan 20 20 1 5 0 sas Calif 100 72 30 50 0 ornia Color 50 60 15 15 0 ado Conne 3 65 17 3 0 ctic ut Delaw 25 90 0 0 0 are Flori da\b Georg 75 50 15 5 0 ia Idaho 100 80 10 2 0 Illin 20 30 10 0 \c ois India 100 80 \b \b 35 na Iowa 0 0 0 5 \c Kansa 80 55 22 19 \c s Kentu 80 45 1 1 0 cky Louis 98 100 10 10 \c iana Maine 15 40 1 1 0 Maryl 91 8 16 8 100 and Massa 30 50 5 0 0 chus etts Michi 100 25 3 3 0 gan Minne 50 85 5 10 0 sota Missi 90 50 10 50 0 ssip pi Misso 75 65 30 20 0 uri Monta 95 85 2 0 100 na Nebra 82 19 4 0 0 ska Nevad 82 50 25 12 0 a New 80 45 1 1 0 Hamp shir e New Jers ey\b New 50 65 30 10 0 Mexi co New York \d North 95 90 0 0 0 Caro lina North 56 0 1 0 14 Dako ta Ohio 84 61 7 5 \c Oklah 100 40 5 5 0 oma Orego 5 75 10 5 0 n Penns 15 45 15 5 0 ylva nia Rhode 14 42 0 3 \c Isla nd South 100 40 10 40 0 Caro lina South 100 40 0 0 0 Dako ta Tenne 30 30 5 15 0 ssee Texas 73 40 \b \b \c Utah 100 80 50 10 0 Vermo 20 80 0 0 0 nt Virgi 42 42 1 3 \c nia Washi 85 60 5 5 \c ngton West 5 78 0 2 2 Virg inia Wisco 5 15 1 1 0 nsin Wyomi 80 20 5 2 0 ng -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a The District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not included because they each have one LEA. See app. I.

\b Data were collected by state but were not available at the time of our survey.

\c Some LEAs provided more than one other type of service.

\d LEAs provided this information to the state; however, the data were not aggregated at the state level.

Table III.6

States' Most Often Used Methods for Monitoring LEAs

Telephone Did Review of calls not Site documentatio Technical (monitoring Multip monito State visits n assistance ) Other le r ------------------ ------ ------------ ---------- ----------- ------ ------ ------ Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X California X Colorado X Connecticut\a Delaware X Florida X Georgia X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Lousiana X Maine X Maryland X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X Mississippi X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Virginia X Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Hawaii is not included in this table because it has only one LEA.

\a Missing data.

Table III.7

Private School Participation in Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program

Number of private not- Number of for-profit Number of private not- schools students for-profit participatin participatin State schools g g ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ Alabama 225 \a 27,800 Alaska \a \b \b Arizona \a 75 15,100 Arkansas \a 35 10,200 California 4,158 \b \a Colorado 384 90 48,800 Connecticut 337 \b \b Delaware 164 85 15,000 District of 61 36 \a Columbia Florida 1,168 \a \b Georgia 521 \a \a Hawaii 63 34 10,100 Idaho 80 17 500 Illinois 1,380 \a \a Indiana 961 307 69,700 Iowa 204 204 44,800 Kansas 152 \a 28,000 Kentucky 300 199 49,400 Lousiana 392 \a 113,300 Maine 103 42 10,500 Maryland 1,113 209 57,400 Massachusetts 176 \a \a Michigan 1,067 800 176,700 Minnesota 543 407 62,600 Mississippi 45 67 18,500 Missouri 445 400 95,000 Montana\ \a \a 11,300 Nebraska 224 219 40,700 Nevada 99 \a \a New Hampshire 150 110 16,800 New Jersey 1,006 886 205,000 New Mexico 142 51 11,900 New York 2,142 \b \b North Carolina 545 28 4,900 North Dakota 65 65 8,000 Ohio 878 \b \b Oklahoma 200 200 \b Oregon 335 \a \a Pennsylvania 2,179 1107 278,100 Puerto Rico 532 8 3,000 Rhode Island 170 126 21,500 South Carolina 380 \b \b South Dakota 167 92 11,800 Tennessee \a \a \a Texas \a 867 165,600 Utah 54 36 2,100 Vermont 103 40 6,500 Virginia \a \a 32,300 Washington 48 125 5,000 West Virginia 662 104 4,300 Wisconsin 980 490 100 Wyoming 31 4 200 ---------------------------------------------------------- \a Missing data.

\b Data were collected by state but were not aggregated at the state level.

Table III.8

Method Used to Distribute Funds by State

Basis ---------------------------------------- Reimbursem Forward LEA State ent funding request Other ---------------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X California X Colorado X Connecticut X Delaware X Florida X Georgia X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Lousiana X Maine X Maryland X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X Mississippi X Missouri X X Montana X Nebraska X X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico\a X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Virginia X Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X ---------------------------------------------------------- Note: Hawaii is not included in this table because it has only one LEA.

\a Missing data.

Table III.9

Method Used to Select Neediest Districts by State

Selection method -------------------------------------- State Application Formula ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X California X Colorado X Connecticut\ X Delaware X Florida X Georgia X X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Lousiana X Maine X Maryland X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X X Mississippi\a Missouri\a Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico\a X New York X North Carolina X X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X X Oregon X Pennsylvania X X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X X Texas X X Utah X Vermont X Virginia X Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X ---------------------------------------------------------- Note: Hawaii is not included in this table because it has only one LEA.

\a Missing data.

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

GAO CONTACTS

Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209 Sandra L. Baxter, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7053

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made important contributions to this report: John Carney helped design the questionnaire, gather survey information from states, reviewed Department of Education files, wrote summaries of those reviews, and drafted sections of the report; D. Catherine Baltzell, Dianne Murphy Blank, and Deborah Edwards helped design the study and advised on methodology; Edward Tuchman helped gather survey data from states and, with Wayne Dow, provided survey analyses; and Linda Stokes and Sheila Nicholson helped gather survey information from states. In addition, Robert Crystal and Julian Klazkin performed the legal analysis and provided ongoing legal advice.

-------------------- \28 QUEST is a commercially developed and marketed curriculum used by many school districts nationwide.

\29 The full requirement of the law was that districts adopt and implement a program to prevent the use of illicit drugs and alcohol by students that, at a minimum, includes age-appropriate, developmentally based drug and alcohol education and prevention programs (which address the legal, social, and health consequences of drug and alcohol use and which provide information about effective techniques for resisting peer pressure to use illicit drugs or alcohol) for students in all grades of the schools operated or served by the LEA from early childhood level through grade 12.

\30 This review included activities funded under the Governor's Program of Drug-Free Schools. Since activities under the Governor's Program are beyond the scope of our review, findings pertaining to it are excluded from the discussion in this site report.

\31 Audit Results of RESA VIII's Administration of the Federal Drug-Free Schools Program, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1995), p. 4.

\32 Puerto Rico provided draft responses to our survey, but we could not obtain a final official response from Puerto Rico before completing our analysis. We have included these draft responses as applicable.

*** End of document. ***